My final paper topic is H. R. 274, “To impose certain limitations on the receipt of out-of-State municipal solid waste, and for other purposes.” This bill was introduced by Robert Wittman, Republican representative of Virginia, in the House of Representatives. This act proposes to address environmental and political concerns by giving more power to the states to limit garbage imports and regulate operators. The reason States cannot regulate for themselves their municipal solid waste imports is that only Congress can regulate interstate commerce.
Solid waste management has been a major public concern. There are many states overflowing with solid waste such as New York, New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland, and so forth. The more states are industrialized or urbanized, the more solid waste is produced. Thus the states are looking forward to transport the solid waste to other states in order to landfill or incinerate that. Nobody wants to receive solid waste. In case solid waste contains something risk of health, the residents’ resist in the dumping area would be stronger. Thus decision makers should concern about NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) phenomenon. However, I could found a few states are welcome solid waste, because they recycle it and make money.
Nevertheless, the conflicts between states frequently initiate litigation. This act H. R. 274 is expected to reduce these problems. In my paper, I am going to the cases of conflicts between states, and study how well currently government manages solid waste interstate transportation. Last, I will look at how effectively the Act H. R. 274 could handle these problems.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Global Environmental Issues - Task part 2
I cannot still define whether developing countries have the right to exploit forest as Europe and the U.S. did in the past. However, I dare say that developed countries do not have a right to tell them not to exploit forest because humanity would be suffered by destruction of nature regardless of what they did before. Nobody can say that a country could develop economy without industrialization, if the country is poor. Nobody can say that no one want to be well off. As least, developing countries are trying to escape from poverty. This is good news for developed countries as well. Otherwise developed countries have to feed the poor countries endlessly in aspect of humanitarian impulse as Hardin (2007) in Lifeboat Ethics criticizes the World Food Bank. Tobin mentions the criticism of aid for poor countries with this reason: “Poorer nations must accept responsibility for their own fate because outside efforts to help them only worsen the problem and lead to an unhealthy dependence” (p. 288).
Although it does not mean that the developing countries are free from the responsibility of climate change which could lead humanity as a whole to be the end. If industrialized countries concern about environmental problems caused by industrializing countries, they should help the developing countries give priority to environmental matter rather than coercive action. The ways of help would be various. Tobin suggests alternatives to protest tropical forest such as certification programs, taxes. However, the most problem is, I think, that the developing countries are excluded from the decision making procedure. To make the industrializing countries understood and persuaded is the challenge for the rich countries in order to save the whole.
I want to introduce a case of my country South Korea. South Korea was one of the poorest countries after ending Korea War in 1945. Now my country is one of the stabilized countries in economics and politics. In a news paper a few years ago, I read that South Korea is the first country which converted from an aid-receiving country to an aid country after World War Ⅱ. I believe that my country cannot develop without other country’s aid. In the environmental problem, it seems like the same situation with my country.
The developing countries desperately need helps like my country before. The developed countries have lots of resources to sustain environment and preserve environment such as technology, monetary, human resources, and so on, while the developing countries do not have. The industrializing countries are expecting the developed country’s knowhow or consultants to manage environmental issue as well as economic issue. For instance, if a product produced by green energy would be given incentives to export to the developed countries, the developing countries are expected to spur to use clean energy instead of fossil fuel.
If the Environmental Kuznets Curve is right, it is reasonable that the industrializing countries priority to economic development rather than environmental issue. Dasgupta, et al. (2002) states that “In the first stage of industrialization, pollution in the environmental Kuznets curve world grows rapidly because people are more interested in jobs and income than clean air and water, communities are too poor to pay for abatement, and environmental regulation is correspondingly weak” (p. 147). However, what we have to concern is how the environmental Kuznets curve could be lowered and flatten in the developing nation rather than expecting that the developing nations change their priority from environment to economics.
I do not think that this is all about equity between industrialized and developing countries, but it is about how we can reduce climate change together. It means that the development nations should keep trying to eliminate pollutants from their own countries. Moreover, the developed countries should concern “environmental risks that are either newly discovered or generated by the use of new materials and technologies” (Dasgupata, Laplante, Wang and Wheeler, 2002, p. 162). If the rich countries do not effort to eliminate pollutants, how can the developing countries agree with the developed country's demands?
Although it does not mean that the developing countries are free from the responsibility of climate change which could lead humanity as a whole to be the end. If industrialized countries concern about environmental problems caused by industrializing countries, they should help the developing countries give priority to environmental matter rather than coercive action. The ways of help would be various. Tobin suggests alternatives to protest tropical forest such as certification programs, taxes. However, the most problem is, I think, that the developing countries are excluded from the decision making procedure. To make the industrializing countries understood and persuaded is the challenge for the rich countries in order to save the whole.
I want to introduce a case of my country South Korea. South Korea was one of the poorest countries after ending Korea War in 1945. Now my country is one of the stabilized countries in economics and politics. In a news paper a few years ago, I read that South Korea is the first country which converted from an aid-receiving country to an aid country after World War Ⅱ. I believe that my country cannot develop without other country’s aid. In the environmental problem, it seems like the same situation with my country.
The developing countries desperately need helps like my country before. The developed countries have lots of resources to sustain environment and preserve environment such as technology, monetary, human resources, and so on, while the developing countries do not have. The industrializing countries are expecting the developed country’s knowhow or consultants to manage environmental issue as well as economic issue. For instance, if a product produced by green energy would be given incentives to export to the developed countries, the developing countries are expected to spur to use clean energy instead of fossil fuel.
If the Environmental Kuznets Curve is right, it is reasonable that the industrializing countries priority to economic development rather than environmental issue. Dasgupta, et al. (2002) states that “In the first stage of industrialization, pollution in the environmental Kuznets curve world grows rapidly because people are more interested in jobs and income than clean air and water, communities are too poor to pay for abatement, and environmental regulation is correspondingly weak” (p. 147). However, what we have to concern is how the environmental Kuznets curve could be lowered and flatten in the developing nation rather than expecting that the developing nations change their priority from environment to economics.
I do not think that this is all about equity between industrialized and developing countries, but it is about how we can reduce climate change together. It means that the development nations should keep trying to eliminate pollutants from their own countries. Moreover, the developed countries should concern “environmental risks that are either newly discovered or generated by the use of new materials and technologies” (Dasgupata, Laplante, Wang and Wheeler, 2002, p. 162). If the rich countries do not effort to eliminate pollutants, how can the developing countries agree with the developed country's demands?
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Task part 1: Environmental Justice
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/for-sooty-port-areas-clean-affordable-trucks/
March 10, 2010
For Sooty Port Areas, Clean Affordable Trucks
By Sindya N. Bhanoo
Truck drivers in New Jersey and New York can apply for grants and low-interest loans for purchasing a new and clean truck. The program is cooperated between the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. Dirivers applied can get 25 percent of the purchase price of a new truck and a 5.25 percent interest rate on the remaining amount. The program targets the pre-1993 trucks which are serious emitters. Judith Enck, the environmental agency’s regional administrator for New York and New Jersey explains that this program is environmental justice because a lot of low-income communities are distributed around the ports and the communities are exposed by air pollution from a lot of truck traffic in the ports. Thus this clean truck programs are expected to incredibly reduce emission if drivers buy trucks built after 2007.
In the article, Ms. Enck mentions that the communities around the ports are mostly composed of those who have low-income. They are seriously exposed to air pollution from a lot of truck traffic. She defines that it is income-based environmental inequity.
The EPA defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to development, implementation, and enforcement environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The issue of environmental justice became firstly known by the United Church of Christ’s Commission for Racial Justice (CRJ) in 1987. The Clinton Administration created the Office of Environmental Equity within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Executive Order 12898 (Konisky, 2009). President Clinton (1994) states that “each Federal agency shall conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment, in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons from participation in, denying persons the benefits of, or subjecting persons to discrimination under such programs, policies, and activities because of their race, color, or national origin” (Rast 2006, p. 257).
Furthermore, the clean truck program could enforce environmental sustainability of the communities surrounded the ports. Paehlke defines environmental sustainability as “the capacity to continuously produce the necessities of a quality human existence within the bounds of a natural world of undiminished quality” (p. 245) in the article, Sustainable Development and Urban Life in North America (2010). He suggests “triple-bottom-line thinking” considering sustainability: economic prosperity, social well-being, and environmental quality. As drivers replace their old dirty truck using emitter diesel with new clean truck, the communities could improve life quality as well as air quality. According to the article, the clean truck built from 2004 to 2007 could reduce smog emissions by 50 percent and soot by two-thirds.
There is not enough evidence if the resource of air pollution in the area is only from the trucks. I assume that there are lots of ships and plants which could cause the air pollution besides trucks. And the article does not mention sufficient statistics to reflect the health condition of the residents in order to prove environmental justice. However, the government behavior to show the willingness to eliminate environmental inequities is the most important point here.
March 10, 2010
For Sooty Port Areas, Clean Affordable Trucks
By Sindya N. Bhanoo
Truck drivers in New Jersey and New York can apply for grants and low-interest loans for purchasing a new and clean truck. The program is cooperated between the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. Dirivers applied can get 25 percent of the purchase price of a new truck and a 5.25 percent interest rate on the remaining amount. The program targets the pre-1993 trucks which are serious emitters. Judith Enck, the environmental agency’s regional administrator for New York and New Jersey explains that this program is environmental justice because a lot of low-income communities are distributed around the ports and the communities are exposed by air pollution from a lot of truck traffic in the ports. Thus this clean truck programs are expected to incredibly reduce emission if drivers buy trucks built after 2007.
In the article, Ms. Enck mentions that the communities around the ports are mostly composed of those who have low-income. They are seriously exposed to air pollution from a lot of truck traffic. She defines that it is income-based environmental inequity.
The EPA defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to development, implementation, and enforcement environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The issue of environmental justice became firstly known by the United Church of Christ’s Commission for Racial Justice (CRJ) in 1987. The Clinton Administration created the Office of Environmental Equity within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Executive Order 12898 (Konisky, 2009). President Clinton (1994) states that “each Federal agency shall conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment, in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons from participation in, denying persons the benefits of, or subjecting persons to discrimination under such programs, policies, and activities because of their race, color, or national origin” (Rast 2006, p. 257).
Furthermore, the clean truck program could enforce environmental sustainability of the communities surrounded the ports. Paehlke defines environmental sustainability as “the capacity to continuously produce the necessities of a quality human existence within the bounds of a natural world of undiminished quality” (p. 245) in the article, Sustainable Development and Urban Life in North America (2010). He suggests “triple-bottom-line thinking” considering sustainability: economic prosperity, social well-being, and environmental quality. As drivers replace their old dirty truck using emitter diesel with new clean truck, the communities could improve life quality as well as air quality. According to the article, the clean truck built from 2004 to 2007 could reduce smog emissions by 50 percent and soot by two-thirds.
There is not enough evidence if the resource of air pollution in the area is only from the trucks. I assume that there are lots of ships and plants which could cause the air pollution besides trucks. And the article does not mention sufficient statistics to reflect the health condition of the residents in order to prove environmental justice. However, the government behavior to show the willingness to eliminate environmental inequities is the most important point here.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Environmental inequity
Konisky (2009) proves that there are class-based inequities in government enforcement of environmental laws through his research. He also says that “state enforcement behavior is strongly associated with economic class at the county level” (p. 117). He suggests that the federal government could reduce the environmental disparities using grants (or financial assistance), and “environmental justice concern” (p.118).
I am more interested in the reason why the environmental disparities are occurred especially in county’s level. There might be some reasons such as more public indifference or less interest group to involve the environmental decision making in low income communities, compared with high income communities. I think, because the poor are more interested in their livings rather than the politics. Without public’s resistance of environmental policy, abominations such as landfills or incineration plants are likely to be constructed in the communities. This tendency makes the environmental inequity, I think.
I am more interested in the reason why the environmental disparities are occurred especially in county’s level. There might be some reasons such as more public indifference or less interest group to involve the environmental decision making in low income communities, compared with high income communities. I think, because the poor are more interested in their livings rather than the politics. Without public’s resistance of environmental policy, abominations such as landfills or incineration plants are likely to be constructed in the communities. This tendency makes the environmental inequity, I think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
